Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:00:06 — 70.0MB)
Subscribe: RSS
Part one of two-part conversation with Martin J, on accents, what the voice communicates, voiceprints, the child abuse key to conditioning, losing ego, trying to understand parental break-up, the thing that didn’t happen, an itinerant lifestyle, Katy Griggs, seeking the organizing principal, mind control programs, Joseph Chilton Pearce, culture vs. nature, a missed sense of purpose, an intentional culture, divisions of self, Sheldon Solomon & Terror Management Theory, an unconscious conspiracy, letting go of death anxiety, a system of comforts, the bargain of capitalism, consenting to slavery, compulsory basic income, walking meat automata, a culture in decline, culture needs a host, a subtler energy source.
Songs: “The Kommema and his Religion” by SunWalker; “Alone Inside Your Love,” by Origami Conspiracy; “Kill Me Before I Kill You,” by The December Sound; “Evasion,” by Eyelash Pulse.
I’d love to har you interview Dr Joran Peterson……
Cool songs and chat, thanks from another 37 year old in culture recovery (as if that’s possible)…
Aah…the light British accent and the credibility that it can engender….Now listen to some old Aldous Huxley audio….O’, boy. Wonder if it got arrived at as a class denominator because it disarms people ? Love the slow-motion, polite elucidation dance on this one….Huxleys…Wedgewoods…Darwins. All Brits, mate ! William Sargeant too. Jesus don’t want you for a bluebeam.
and your point is?
There doesn’t seem to be any EQUITABLE way to distribute power in society/empire. Hence the sociopaths will always have their place(s) waiting for them regardless of race/gender.
OK. But what does this have to do with the British accent?
It’s the sound of two polite, public school British accents exchanging data on the undersides of empire, such as it is. Each gently not completely sure or trusting of the others’ statements and yet still keeping the exchange going. The hovering ambiguity/tension. Something humorous/poignant/outrageous about it given that these themes and topics tend not to get aired too frequently in quite this open of a format these days.
Also the notion that the British speak in that elliptical way because there we’re no civil rights and an upper class person could squash you without consequence should you inadvertently offend or slander something/someone dear to them.
O’, and this : https://twitter.com/PulpLibrarian Did you watch that lsd doc yet ?
Any social public service role is going to have people sucking your energy by it’s very nature. My friend works in a bookstore and all these introverted “intellects” buying books choose to gush lengthily at the checkout because he’s inherently sympathetic by his very nature. Amazingly, he doesn’t understand why he’s burnt at the end of the day. That’s also why a lot of nurses are gruff and cold. Protection.
My one comment would be that I hope that Martin J will listen over to this podcast and become aware of his habit of using the collective `you’ to express ideas and experiences unique to him but that are not necessarily applicable to the host or listening audience.
In contrast, the latest interviews with the Anonymous Italian, the guest is extremely sensitive to owning his own stuff and not putting anything onto the host. I appreciate his sensitivity a lot. Perhaps this type of sensitivity comes naturally to those of us who have been deeply wounded.
That said, I enjoyed the interview and thank you very much for an intelligent-listener experience.
any statement in particular? i am usually sensitive to that sort of thing & didn’t notice Martin doing it, even on listening back. maybe that was just because everything he followed that collective “you” with fit my own experience….
Sure. I preface this with the fact that it is not my intention to nit-pick the guest’s contribution; and that I point this out with compassion as – to use the royal “us” – very few of us have mastered the art of self awareness in every waking moment,
But here goes – you asked me to elaborate and this is my take on certain parts of the interview. The guest starts by owning his experience and then (for some reason) switches to “you” as a sort of appeal to agreement – for instance:
Starts at 16:24
“…I really started looking at this stuff after I had a sort of anxiety breakdown, in a sense, where I couldn’t sustain a portion of my ego anymore…and I found that the effort of it was making me physically unwell. And I think once I had let that go I thought I need to start looking at something else or my mind became open.
16:49
I think that’s the thing, isn’t it, that your mind is not… you do see evidence all the time, but you dismiss it because you’re still maintaining a part of your ego and I think once you stop doing that, then you become more aware…”
I wonder if it might be more helpful to pose a set of questions to explore whether or not others come to awareness in the same way rather than hold the assumption that the audience is in agreement at every stage with the guest’s statements.
There were quite a few of these statements throughout but I have no wish to labour the point.
Anyway – the interviews are still bloody good and I thank you both. BTW I can detect traces of the Yorkshire accent also 🙂